Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot (Nobel laureate James D. Watson on Darwin and his influence)
LA Times Calendar Live.com ^ | September 18, 2005 | James D. Watson

Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored

Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-209 next last
To: JudgemAll
Strange thing is that Darwinists contradict themselves by being against things like "overpopulation" or means of being "fruitful and multiplying".

Arrogant overbroad generalization noted.
141 posted on 09/19/2005 11:34:07 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
How can you be sure that they haven't tried without success?

They should report their failures, or they aren't doing what I would call science. If in fact they've made predictions but those predictions don't work, or they've constructed falsifications and the falsifications end up contradicting their hypothesis they owe it to the rest of us to admit it. But I see no evidence of any of this from the IDers.

In fact all I see from the IDers is Paleys failed argument (after Aquinus) resurrected into modern scientific-seeming garb, and sniping at evolution's unsolved problems (lets face it, there are always going to be gaps). Real scientists are out there solving the problems. Like resolving the bloodclot cascade and the bacterial flagellum, not just shouting "God Did It!", and giving up.

142 posted on 09/19/2005 11:34:31 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope
Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?

No. It took millions of years of evolution.

143 posted on 09/19/2005 11:35:16 AM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
I want to know what their punishment is for breaking it

It's a nonsensical request. It's like asking what the punishment is for breaking the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. It's a classic case of a creationist equivocating "law" in scientific therminology with "law" in political discourse.
144 posted on 09/19/2005 11:36:37 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

It could just be a feeble joke on his part, I guess.


145 posted on 09/19/2005 11:37:53 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"In a lot of discussions about ToE, someone will bring up an experiment in which a population of fruit flies was created to all have a specific trait. The starting population did not have that trait, but the current population certainly does. Voila! Evolution confirmed in the lab!

What those experiments showed was not that a new species would result but that small changes in a gene can produce large changes in morphology. Because most morphological changes from small gene changes are imperceptible, they ended up creating larger genetic changes to enable them to observe larger saltative morphological changes. Although speciation is generally considered to be a cessation in gene flow between two groups, had the individual flies survived, we would have considered those with four wings instead of two to be a different species, simply based on morphology.

"I was merely trying to point out that a new specicies is not described in the above paragraph. The Origin of Species is not of great interest if it discusses red hair or blue eyes (allele variation within a population, I believe is the term).

"The real meat of ToE is when one species gives rise to a new species which can no longer interbreed with the original species. Ring species are of interest here.

The problem with these arguments is the difference between the creationist definition of a species and the scientific definition of species. A good working definition is the cessation of gene flow. This stoppage of gene flow does not necessarily have to be a physical inability to have fertile offspring but can be where two populations for some other reason, simply do not interbreed.

This is seen in a number of ring species where two subspecies share the same geographical region and could produce fertile offspring but do not interbreed. A good example of this is the Asian Greenish Warbler where the two subspecies farthest from the origin could genetically have fertile offspring but do not recognize each other as members of the same breeding group. Their markings and songs are just too different.

"But to reiterate the point I was trying to make. In a lab, a chemist can absolutely substantiate Avogadro's law. As often as you like. But a biologist cannot great a new species, and thereby substantiate ToE in a controlled laboratory setting.

If plants are considered (as they should be) speciation has occurred in the lab, more than once. PatrickHenry's 'List-O-Links' has some good links to examples of this.

"Substantiating ToE cannot be done in the same way as the laws of physics of chemistry can be substantiated.

They can if you use the definition of species that science uses rather than the unrealistic definition creationists use.

146 posted on 09/19/2005 11:39:21 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
I think it's more along the lines of a law of economics. Do you call laws of economics laws of physics?

There are aspects of evolution that are as imprecise as economics, and for the same reason. You can't predict the future in detail. Natural selection, as an idea, got its start from the ideas of the Scottish economists like Adam Smith. The basic thought is that the marketplace brings order out of chaos, and that the most efficient economy occurs when there is an absence of central planning.

This is an imprecise formulation, and many general science writers extend it into areas where it doesn't belong.

Common descent, however is extremely precise in its formulation, and coupled with molecular biology, is as rigorous as physics. There's a lot of detailed work yet to be done, but common descent is continuously on the line, every time a new genome is mapped.

147 posted on 09/19/2005 11:39:23 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: rabair
I've gotten to the point where it's (AiG) one of the first pages I view every day.

I suppose if one makes it a daily point to keep his head buried in the sand, you'll never have to deal with reality? Have you ever read a real science book or is bogus pseudo science good enough for you?

148 posted on 09/19/2005 11:40:52 AM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
What is the punishment for one who disobeys the law of evolution?

LOL

149 posted on 09/19/2005 11:46:42 AM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Fossil evidence is not the only evidence for evolution. Evolution is observed in extant populations. There is no doubt that evolution occurs, what does have questions remaining is the 'how' of evolution. That is the job of those developing the 'Theory of Evolution'.
150 posted on 09/19/2005 11:47:44 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
The problem is though that scientists tend to just ignore things that don't jibe with their prejudices or are embarrasing to their prejudices.

That's an outright falsehood. All science is subject to peer review. All data is tested with skepticism, even if it would appear to support the scientist's original theses. This is why the evolution hoaxes have all been uncovered by scientists.

If creationists had such a high burden for their information, sites like "Answers in Genesis" would have run out of things to publish years ago.

151 posted on 09/19/2005 11:51:36 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
"I wouldn't put it in the same league with a law of physics or else you could make some definite predictions about a population of eels (say) and what they will be in 2 million years. I think it's more along the lines of a law of economics. Do you call laws of economics laws of physics?"

I was trying to get the poster I was responding to to realize that the laws of physics are never broken and are not similar to legal laws in any way.

Evolution can be considered a law of nature in that it invariably affects all organisms on a continuing basis. It is not a human construct. The ToE, which is a human construct, is not a law, nor has anyone stated such.

152 posted on 09/19/2005 11:55:40 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: SeaLion

S'OK. I was posting for the lurkers.


153 posted on 09/19/2005 11:58:12 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
I believe both reason and faith can co-exist. The world would be an empty and sterile place without their mutual presence.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
154 posted on 09/19/2005 12:04:04 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: highball
If creationists had such a high burden for their information, sites like "Answers in Genesis" would have run out of things to publish years ago.

They'd still have some funny cartoon strips.

155 posted on 09/19/2005 12:08:47 PM PDT by Quark2005 (Where's the science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Darwin is still the greatest scientist of all time. He provided us with a powerful, unifying explanation for the changes that occur in nature. No one has been able to come up with anything better. Its a classic example of how the scientific method has been able to advance our understanding of the world around us. There is of course a place for religion but its important to remember the context: science seeks to explain what can be verified through direct observation and experimentation - e.g, the scientific method; religion seeks to explain what we can't rationally explain, like the mystery of death and why the world exists as it does - in other words, the ultimate origin of existence itself. When we understand the distinction, we realize that Darwin wasn't threatening to overturn our ties to God - its just that nature can now be appreciated on her own terms and we're all the more richer for it knowing that nature minds her own business without any reference to us at all.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
156 posted on 09/19/2005 12:19:16 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Evolution is The Theory Of Evolution There are no "laws" just theories. Theories that haven't ever been proven, if they were, then they'd be laws, and there would be no debate of the matter. Also these same theories, with all our knowledge and technology, have never been duplicated.

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
4-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
5- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

157 posted on 09/19/2005 12:27:28 PM PDT by mountn man (Everyone brings joy into a room. Some when they enter. Others when they leave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

"Well Watson chose to bring up the subject of DNA in an article on Darwin. Now we can't ask how it evolved? Also doesn't DNA's ability to replicate itself depend on RNA and how did these two co-evolve?"

Of course you can ask how DNA "evolved". But DNA wasn't identified as the carrier of genetic information until long after Darwin. All DNA work supports Evolution.

Strictly speaking, at least in procaryotes, DNA replication does not involve dependence on RNA, unless you consider that all cell processes are RNA dependent in a very indirect manner (in this case it is indirect since the DNA polymerase is a protein and involves rRNA, tRNA and mRNA to produce the enzyme, but the actual replication of DNA can be done in a test tube with only DNA polymerase and a DNA template and the appropriate nucleotides in the right form).


158 posted on 09/19/2005 12:30:41 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: mountn man

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
4-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
5- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

It's good that you put in bold face the definition of 'theory' that is least relevant to the theory of evolution. Sometimes people get confused about such things.

159 posted on 09/19/2005 12:36:42 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Another candidate for The List-O-Links, in the "THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM" section.

You might consider a book on this subject. You might be able to get it published.

160 posted on 09/19/2005 12:41:27 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-209 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson